Terrorist attack thread

[SoulMonster]

12 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

But is that because most of proximity? Most Muslims live in areas surrounded by other Muslims. If 300 millions Muslims were imported to the West you would start to see the scales tip in the number of muslims vs non-muslims killed.

From your argument it alsmost sounds like you think terrorist will do terror from nature and do it to whoever is available. What Diesel is referring to, I believe, is sectarian violence between various Muslim groups. Like IS attacking other Muslims who they do not think are radical enough. Basically extremists attacking moderates.

[DieselDaisy]

29 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

But is that because most of proximity? Most Muslims live in areas surrounded by other Muslims. If 300 millions Muslims were imported to the West you would start to see the scales tip in the number of muslims vs non-muslims killed.

Technically, yes, however it is a bit of a moot point. Wahhabism demands obedience and orthodoxy regardless. It is rather a 'six-and-two-threes' argument then whether an adherent hates a Christian/westerner more than a shia or sufi - I would argue the latter seeing as fratricidal-theological disputes are always the more bitter, and seeing as there are local politico-demographic undercurrents.

Who do you hate more, speaking rhetorically? The person who does not possess your belief, or the person who holds an erroneous variant of your belief?

[Dan H.]

19 hours ago, Len B'stard said:

Thank you, i think everyone does on some level

Bet Miser disagrees

[Axl owns dexter]

2 hours ago, SoulMonster said:

From your argument it alsmost sounds like you think terrorist will do terror from nature and do it to whoever is available. What Diesel is referring to, I believe, is sectarian violence between various Muslim groups. Like IS attacking other Muslims who they do not think are radical enough. Basically extremists attacking moderates.

Yes, I pretty much do believe that a portion of this population will commit terrorism whether they are in Iraq or Belgium. The only thing that will change is the demographics of the groups who get blown up.

1 hour ago, DieselDaisy said:

Technically, yes, however it is a bit of a moot point. Wahhabism demands obedience and orthodoxy regardless. It is rather a 'six-and-two-threes' argument then whether an adherent hates a Christian/westerner more than a shia or sufi - I would argue the latter seeing as fratricidal-theological disputes are always the more bitter, and seeing as there are local politico-demographic undercurrents.

Who do you hate more, speaking rhetorically? The person who does not possess your belief, or the person who holds an erroneous variant of your belief?

There's no way any of us can put ourselves in the minds of a someone who would blow themselves up for an ideal. I won't even try.

[SoulMonster]

2 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Yes, I pretty much do believe that a portion of this population will commit terrorism whether they are in Iraq or Belgium. The only thing that will change is the demographics of the groups who get blown up.

Yes, a proportion of them. And some of them would probably prefer to be in closer proximity to more "western targets", too. Most of them, though, are using terror as part of the warfare against local enemies, which are typically more moderate Muslims - but also people of other religions - as in the case of IS and other extremists, or Muslims of an enemy denomination (like in the ongoing low-intensity war between Sunni and Shia Muslims). Most of the terror in Iraq, if we exclude that committed by IS, is from Shia and or Sunni vying for territorial control and using terror as a weapon. That particular terror isn't transferable to our countries, it is a predominately local thing.

[Bumblefeet]

The US are sending FBI teams to Belgium to help out with the terrorism investigation.

I hope their equipment can read floppy disks. 

[Axl owns dexter]

3 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

Yes, a proportion of them. And some of them would probably prefer to be in closer proximity to more "western targets", too. Most of them, though, are using terror as part of the warfare against local enemies, which are typically more moderate Muslims - but also people of other religions - as in the case of IS and other extremists, or Muslims of an enemy denomination (like in the ongoing low-intensity war between Sunni and Shia Muslims). Most of the terror in Iraq, if we exclude that committed by IS, is from Shia and or Sunni vying for territorial control and using terror as a weapon. That particular terror isn't transferable to our countries, it is a predominately local thing.

What do you think they are going to be doing in the West when they are a critical mass? They will commit terror for territorial control of France or Belgium instead of Iraq. And do we even want to find out?

[SoulMonster]

2 hours ago, DieselDaisy said:

Technically, yes, however it is a bit of a moot point. Wahhabism demands obedience and orthodoxy regardless. It is rather a 'six-and-two-threes' argument then whether an adherent hates a Christian/westerner more than a shia or sufi - I would argue the latter seeing as fratricidal-theological disputes are always the more bitter, and seeing as there are local politico-demographic undercurrents.

Who do you hate more, speaking rhetorically? The person who does not possess your belief, or the person who holds an erroneous variant of your belief?

If we lok at many legal practises of Islam, it is a grave sin, and often punishable with death, to leave Islam (which can be interpreted as having the wrong form of Islam -- which sheds light on why some of my Muslim friends rarely find it funny if I joke about them converting to Christianity), but not a crime to start out as a Christian. So it is worse to move away from the "right" Islam than to happen to be "born" a Christian.

[Axl owns dexter]

4 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If we lok at many legal practises of Islam, it is a grave sin, and often punishable with death, to leave Islam (which can be interpreted as having the wrong form of Islam -- which sheds light on why some of my Muslim friends rarely find it funny if I joke about them converting to Christianity), but not a crime to start out as a Christian. So it is worse to move away from the "right" Islam than to happen to be "born" a Christian.

That's not a good selling point. Importing people who will kill eachother if they leave their religion doesn't seem like good immigrant prospects to me.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Axl owns dexter said:

What do you think they are going to be doing in the West when they are a critical mass? They will commit terror for territorial control of France or Belgium instead of Iraq. And do we even want to find out?

What European Muslims will do when we reach population saturation? I guess they will do the same as Christians, Sihks and ateists will do. I don't know what that exactly will be, but I don't expect it to be primarily terrorism. Why would I think so? The terror in the Middle East (and Europe) isn't a result of population overload, predominately, it is a result of failed states allowing terror to take place, unchecked religion and absence of education and rationalism, poverty, huge income inequalities, decades of warfare that has left people heavily armed and disillusioned, etc. Basically, it is a symptom of societal collapse, lack of law and order, and spread of irrationality. Sure, that could happen in some chaotic future world where we have reached some population maximum, but I see no reason why Muslims then will behave differently than others.

[PappyTron]

7 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

If we lok at many legal practises of Islam, it is a grave sin, and often punishable with death, to leave Islam (which can be interpreted as having the wrong form of Islam -- which sheds light on why some of my Muslim friends rarely find it funny if I joke about them converting to Christianity), but not a crime to start out as a Christian. So it is worse to move away from the "right" Islam than to happen to be "born" a Christian.

Is the right answer. A Christian is someone who, according to Islamic doctrine, has perhaps not seen the light/truth of Allah and is therefore a possible Brother. However, someone who has left Islam, or who is practicing what is viewed as "false Islam" (in truth, this is still apostasy as if you aren't all in then you are out, as it were) has actively turned their back on Allah after being knowledgeable of His truth.

Edited March 31, 2016 by PappyTron

[Axl owns dexter]

Just now, SoulMonster said:

What European Muslims will do when we reach population saturation? I guess they will do the same as Christians, Sihks and ateists will do. I don't know what that exactly will be, but I don't expect it to be primarily terrorism. Why would I think so? The terror in the Middle East (and Europe) isn't a result of population overload, predominately, it is a result of failed states allowing terror to take place, unchecked religion and absence of education and rationalism, poverty, huge income inequalities, decades of warfare that has left people heavily armed and disillusioned, etc. Basically, it is a symptom of societal collapse, lack of law and order, and spread of irrationality. Sure, that could happen in some chaotic future world where we have reached some population maximum, but I see no reason why Muslims then will behave differently than others.

All based on wishful thinking that they will magically become just like Europeans in everything but appearance. Once they become a critical mass in a country like France, whose to say they won't turn it into Iraq-lite, where income inequality increases, education lags, and ethnic strife and terrorism increases. I don't want to gamble the future of the West on wishful thinking.

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Axl owns dexter said:

That's not a good selling point. Importing people who will kill eachother if they leave their religion doesn't seem like good immigrant prospects to me.

It wasn't meant as a selling point, I am not sellig anything. And yes, that is absolutely a good reason to not want to allow those kinds of Muslims to enter our countries. That being said, have we have much violence in Europe from Muslims attacking "fallen" former-Muslims? I don't think so, leaving me with the conclusion that most Muslim immigrants either don't abide by those particular Islamic laws, accept that local law has precedence, or quickly change their opinions. Surveys performed on Muslim immigrants who have lived in Europe for some time also suggests that such mechanisms take place. So maybe it isn't as bad of a thing to do as one cold quickly assume. But again, yes, that is a good reason to not be too happy about Muslim immigrants.

3 minutes ago, PappyTron said:

Is the right answer. A Christian is someone who, according to Islamic doctrine, has perhaps not seen the light/truth of Allah and is therefore a possible Brother. However, someone who has left Islam, or who is practicing what is viewed as "false Islam" (in truth, this is still apostasy as if you aren't all in then you are out, as it were) has actively turned their back on Allah after being knowledgeable of His truth.

Which is also why I have travelled Iran as a "Christian" and not as an "very vocal ateist with a particular distaste for Abrahamic religions."

[Axl owns dexter]

1 minute ago, SoulMonster said:

It wasn't meant as a selling point, I am not sellig anything. And yes, that is absolutely a good reason to not want to allow those kinds of Muslims to enter our countries. That being said, have we have much violence in Europe from Muslims attacking "fallen" former-Muslims? I don't think so, leaving me with the conclusion that most Muslim immigrants either don't abide by those particular Islamic laws, accept that local law has precedence, or quickly change their opinions. Surveys performed on Muslim immigrants who have lived in Europe for some time also suggests that such mechanisms take place. So maybe it isn't as bad of a thing to do as one cold quickly assume. But again, yes, that is a good reason to not be too happy about Muslim immigrants.

Well you are for muslim immigration into the west and I am against it. So yes, you are in essence trying to sell people on the idea that the west needs muslim immigration. 

[SoulMonster]

1 minute ago, Axl owns dexter said:

All based on wishful thinking that they will magically become just like Europeans in everything but appearance. Once they become a critical mass in a country like France, whose to say they won't turn it into Iraq-lite, where income inequality increases, education lags, and ethnic strife and terrorism increases. I don't want to gamble the future of the West on wishful thinking.

I was talking about what will happen when we reach population saturation. What you are thinking about could happen MUCH sooner if we keep on allowing large quotas of immigrants and fail at integration

This is being discussed intensely. We can look at comparative immigration from other countries to get some idea of what we can expect, but this will vary depending on the exact immigrants in question, which country they come to, and many other factors. Fortunately, at least in my country, Muslim immigrants of third generation tend to be very similar to the original population. But we have better integration than France and Belgium. In those countries 2nd generation immigrants can be more radical than their parents or relatives in their original home country. But of course it varies a lot. I don't think anyone has the answer, it will be just speculation.

What I think will happen is that countries will adjust the quotas to prevent this to happen. Our natural fear of being minioritized in our own country, the strain on welfare, poverty, etc, as well as inherent xenophobia and racism, will combine to restrict immigration well before we come in a situation where we are minorities and especially where a specific immigrant group has achieved a positive majority. People tend to talk about some European countries already having 10-15 % immigrants. But these are total numbers with immigrants from all kinds of countries and religions. No single immigrant group (like Shia Muslims, Somalis, etc) are that dominant (as far as I know). Additionally, most of these will be well integrated and not pose a danger.

[SoulMonster]

15 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Well you are for muslim immigration into the west and I am against it. So yes, you are in essence trying to sell people on the idea that the west needs muslim immigration. 

That's not good summary of my opinions. I am not for Muslim immigration as such, but for helping people who flee from war and terror. If they happen to be Muslims so be it. I would have preferred ateists ;). I am also not in favor of open borders, but moderate immigration in balance with what we can handle (both in terms of securing proper integration to prevent what is happening in Belgium and to make sure the strain on our internal resources aren't too much). Immigration must be sustainable in the sense that it has failed as soon as people are too unhappy with it, because when that happens in a democracy, it ends because people will vote against it. So the only way it can be sustainable is if the immigration influx is so low that people tend to think it is okay. And that can only happen if people aren't too affected by it.

May I also add that I have never ever argued that we in the West needs Muslim immigration We DON'T need more theists. But many immigrants desperately need help. And some of them happen to be Muslims.

Edited March 31, 2016 by SoulMonster

[Axl owns dexter]

15 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I was talking about what will happen when we reach population saturation. What you are thinking about could happen MUCH sooner if we keep on allowing large quotas of immigrants and fail at integration

This is being discussed intensely. We can look at comparative immigration from other countries to get some idea of what we can expect, but this will vary depending on the exact immigrants in question, which country they come to, and many other factors. Fortunately, at least in my country, Muslim immigrants of third generation tend to be very similar to the original population. But we have better integration than France and Belgium. In those countries 2nd generation immigrants can be more radical than their parents or relatives in their original home country. But of course it varies a lot. I don't think anyone has the answer, it will be just speculation.

What I think will happen is that countries will adjust the quotas to prevent this to happen. Our natural fear of being minioritized in our own country, the strain on welfare, poverty, etc, as well as inherent xenophobia and racism, will combine to restrict immigration well before we come in a situation where we are minorities and especially where a specific immigrant group has achieved a positive majority. People tend to talk about some European countries already having 10-15 % immigrants. But these are total numbers with immigrants from all kinds of countries and religions. No single immigrant group (like Shia Muslims, Somalis, etc) are that dominant (as far as I know). Additionally, most of these will be well integrated and not pose a danger.

Kind of hard to stop the process whenever someone argues for even slowing down immigration gets shouted down as a Nazi. I don't see the political left doing anything to stop the flow of their future voters.

12 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

That's not good summary of my opinions. I am not for Muslim immigration as such, but for helping people who flee from war and terror. If they happen to be Muslims so be it. I would have preferred ateists ;). I am also not in favor of open borders, but moderate immigration in balance with what we can handle (both in terms of securing proper integration to prevent what is happening in Belgium and to make sure the strain on our internal resources aren't too much). Immigration must be sustainable in the sense that it has failed as soon as people are too unhappy with it, because when that happens in a democracy, it ends because people will vote against it. So the only way it can be sustainable is if the immigration influx is so low that people tend to think it is okay. And that can only happen if people aren't too affected by it.

May I also add that I have never ever argued that we in the West needs Muslim immigration We DON'T need more theists. But many immigrants desperately need help. And some of them happen to be Muslims.

Help them in their OWN countries should always be the first response. And if their country is at war, create safe-zones so they don't have to leave the country.

[SoulMonster]

Just now, Axl owns dexter said:

Kind of hard to stop the process whenever someone argues for even slowing down immigration gets shouted down as a Nazi. I don't see the political left doing anything to stop the flow of their future voters.

The way I see it there has been a marked change in this throughout Europe in only the last two years. The negative effect of the stream of immigrants from Syria and Afghanistan has changed the mood radically. And as soon as people start to change their opinions, the politicians do, too, or some other pop out of the woodwork. It's democracy. A minority can't shout down the majority. And regardless they will be voted down sooner or later. This has just happened in Norway. The population was SOOO positive to the immigrants (especially after the horrible picture of the dead 3 year old on the beach in Greece) but it changed quickly after the negative effects started to become more obvious. And then the immigration negative politicians dared to be more vocal when they sensed the winds had changed. There are some sweet dynamics in democracy when it works.

[SoulMonster]

8 minutes ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Help them in their OWN countries should always be the first response. And if their country is at war, create safe-zones so they don't have to leave the country.

I think in most cases people prefer to help immigrants in their own countries. It is usually the ideal. Which is why richer countries often spend a lot of money for humanitarian efforts in other countries. This can also be economically sound - cheaper than accepting immigrants. But it isn't always possible and your idea of putting troops on the ground to invade a part of a country to create a safe-zone (which is the only way I can see this be achieved) is legally problematic and probably much more costly than to accept some influx of immigrants.

[PappyTron]

34 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

(especially after the horrible picture of the dead 3 year old on the beach in Greece)

Not that his death wasn't very sad, but that whole photo opportunity was a perfect example of the media spinning a lie in order to sell a story; his parent were not fleeing the war, but rather had been safe in, I believe, Turkey, for a number of years, and wanted to get to mainland Europe for better financial opportunities. In short, they were safe, but wanted more money, as blunt as that sounds.

Not commenting on anything else you may have said, by the way, just talking about the nature of the media, here.

[Axl owns dexter]

43 minutes ago, SoulMonster said:

I think in most cases people prefer to help immigrants in their own countries. It is usually the ideal. Which is why richer countries often spend a lot of money for humanitarian efforts in other countries. This can also be economically sound - cheaper than accepting immigrants. But it isn't always possible and your idea of putting troops on the ground to invade a part of a country to create a safe-zone (which is the only way I can see this be achieved) is legally problematic and probably much more costly than to accept some influx of immigrants.

Of course it's possible, it just requires the political will to do. And it's better for those people because accepting some refugees helps those refugees, but what about everyone that gets left behind? Creating safe zones for them in those countries is the only way to protect all people who aren't engaging in the fight for their country.

[classicrawker]

Creating a safe zone? in the middle of a warzone? how exactly are you going to protect large numbers  of civilians in the middle of a warzone?

[Axl owns dexter]

15 minutes ago, classicrawker said:

Creating a safe zone? in the middle of a warzone? how exactly are you going to protect large numbers  of civilians in the middle of a warzone?

Are you seriously playing dumb? The whole country isn't a battlezone. You take over an area where there isn't fighting going on with boots on the ground and you defend said swath of land and permit refugees into the area.

[SoulMonster]

9 hours ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Of course it's possible, it just requires the political will to do. And it's better for those people because accepting some refugees helps those refugees, but what about everyone that gets left behind? Creating safe zones for them in those countries is the only way to protect all people who aren't engaging in the fight for their country.

Would Assad or Russia agree to European countries (Nato, I presume) deploying military personell in Syria to create a safe zone away from rebels, IS and regime forces? Of course they wouldn't. Not only does your suggestion imply a worsening of international relations, increase tensions between US and Russia, but it would also be much more expensive than accepting some immigration into European countries.

[SoulMonster]

3 hours ago, Axl owns dexter said:

Are you seriously playing dumb? The whole country isn't a battlezone. You take over an area where there isn't fighting going on with boots on the ground and you defend said swath of land and permit refugees into the area.

If you "take over" an area of Syria without Assad's acceptance -- because I am certain he would NOT allow European forces to be stationed within his borders, that is a declaration of war against Syria. It is an invasion. Then you might as well just invade Syria alltogether to force a peace (like we did in Afghanistan). How would Russia react to an invasion of Syria? Or other neigbouring countries? What would the long-term effect of another such meddling in the internal affairs of a Middle Eastern country be?